ivan

"we the peoples in order to get more gooder, keep darkies down, punish faggots n' commies, help poor people die quicker...."

yeah, if i had to spend eternity in chamonix i'd...i'd...i'd... ...wait, what do i have to do again?

the preamble is a classic example of american grammatical stupidity "in order to form a more perfect union" uh, if it's perfect already, how can it be more perfect?

"This is what we fought the Nazis for, some fucked up jury-rigged bullshit thing rambling down the road?" i think bob dylan pretty much nailed why we fought the nazis in "with god on our side"

yup - you've got my argument nailed and, as said other places, i'm hardly a believer in the perfect world - incidentally, the private means of destroying folks who sell harmful products works too - i seem to recall thalidomide folks getting to sue.

apparently you might not want to move to france

the power of money goverment is a problem of epic proportions, to that i'll agree - however, how are you constitutionally going to resolve it? the rich fucking the poor is as timeless as the earth itself - i don't like it, but i don't see any great solution beyond the fucked up jury-rigged bullshit thing we currently have rattling down the road

It isn't an excuse but the understanding that control of the means to convey information to the public is part of the commons because of its critical importance toward enabling democratic participation of citizenry to the political process. It being called CABLE is a in great part a misnomer as shown by satellite dish reception, or the fact that hardwired cable isn't even the most desirable technology: generalization of wireless would be much cheaper and free us from wired cable monopolies, which explains in part why wired cable monopolies are fighting tooth and nail against community sponsored wireless. i may not be a consitutional expert, but i do recall a concept from my senior gov class called "limited powers" - for better or worse, for the gov to step in, they have to have been given the express power to do so - even the "regulating the public airwaves" schtick thing is an abuse of the elastic clause, imho. i'm pretty much an anarcho-libertard - i don't think the gov should be regulating shit that i look or listen to (anymore than what i want to put in my body, do to another consenting adult, etc.) - i agree it would be nice to have more commericial-free tv, but it should not be a power of the goverment to tell somebody else they have to shut the fuck up or turn it down a bit can you quote chapter n' verse? - in what article of the consitution do you see the justification for the state to get involved in this issue?

for a man who proclaims hatred for "straw men" you appear to have an ability to create your own you've heard more than just "conservative" voices here, but if that flatters your notion of being the lone torch-bearer for all causes liberal, feel free to indulge it was there ever a halycon day when the american electorate was deeply engaged and educated and keepign the tiller of government on the strait and true?

He lives in France, a country where banging 13 year olds is no problem. He moved there for a reason. the non-extradition treaty w/ us musta been a nice coincidence then

didn't druge give us blowjob-gate though?

my mother in law is convinced i'm proffesor snape, actually before that though it was edward the longshanks

return to the original excuse the government has for interfering here - "our airwaves" - fox is a CABLE channel primarily and isn't using the public's resources to broadcast its admitedly tawdry bullshit

the problem is, non-draconian punishments are counter-intuitive, like the concept that sometimes a sailboat goes faster if it has LESS sail up i imagine tvash would agree though, that a repeat sex offender ultimately has to be removed from society

wait, people still use hexes?

uh, rudy, haven't you actually met me? did i strike you in the flesh as super-liberal boy? i'd suggest dealing w/ this sort of crime like all others - with increasing severity of penalites for each recurring crime - and yeah, the second time you rape a kid, that should be it for you and society, so maybe the only difference between the two of us is whether a mofo gets a 2nd chance at life or not - pretty fawking liberal, no? my main problems w/ the death penalty are the extreme expense the state incurs through utilizing it and the irreversible nature of the punishment if new evidence comes to light, but in child rape cases where the evidence often makes a man's guilt incontrivertible, the later isn't so much of an issue. i doubt in his mind that he thinks he "got away with it" - his life was substantially altered, albeit not as extremely as most would wish - how do you think he would have gotten away w/ it since? by killing hte girls and burying them somewhere? by paying off their parents in secret? the story is so sensational, it seems highly unlikely it wouldn't show up in the tabloids to feed the masses. for the roman dude, as i think i said somewhere above, the case is compounded by problems w/ his original judge, his plea deal, and his ensuing flight (seriously, if you haven't seen that hbo documentary, you should, if only b/c it'll put a finer edge on your hate) - he certainly needs to stand before a judge and jury for the flight, and if they and they and the law say he needs to go back behind bars for a good long while for that, that's fine by me.

sure, why not?

i dunno - how much does your wife weigh again?

you say he did not learn his lesson, which implies that you believe there were many more victims after the victim that got his balls in a vice to begin w/ - i would not be suprised if he had gotten away w/ a few victims before he got caught, but very suprised if he got away w/ anything afterwards, which would imply he did learn his lesson, even if it was only through the fear of punishment. at any rate, an impartial judge and jury of his peers are the best folks to mete out what, if any, punishment he deserves 30 years after the fact. draconian punishments sound great, and help republicans get votes, but they don't improve our society a bit. if god exists, you can thank that stupid fucker for putting this horrificly common perversion into the craniums of his mud-based incarnations

boom! who needs courts and trials anyway? the learning his lesson thing is silly though - how on earth was he gonna rape a 2nd kid and not have it all over the place? is there anyone who said he didn't deserve jail time for what he did? of course he did. he served 40 something days and was supposed to do more - all the hub-bub was over how his plea bargain went down w/ the original judge, who seemed likely to ignore the deal and impose a much longer prison stay than had been agreed. bitching about the sentencing range for a first time sex offender is another matter.

Leave It In the Beaver? could star a leper

So the public has clearly been clamoring for crappier shows all this time? Wrong. The vast wasteland of shite that comprises today's "must see TV" landscape is a direct result of chasing advertising dollars, cutting production values to maintain profit margins, and striving to appeal to the lowest common denominator in a context of lowered educational expectations. This creates a climate in which content producers are highly risk-averse and more likely to follow an already established formula than go out on a limb. This sheds light on the proliferation of copycat programming and blows holes in the argument that corporate media provides greater diversity. gilligans island was quality programmign? howdy-fawking-doddy? the gong show?

why set hbo aside? it's practically the only tv i do watch, and the shows are generally really good, including the documentaries and bill maher's talk show (though skin-a-max does own them when it comes to yer late night options ) hbo's a fine example of being able to get quality programming, sans advertising, if you're actually interested in that sorta thing. That's the point. HBO operates less through ad revenue so is insulated from the lowest common denominator imperative and has more freedom for determine content free from commercial advertisers. Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke" don't sell Cocoa-Puffs, yo! but hbo's doing fine business, and if folks want more good channels like that, the market will produce it. i don't have that much time for tv, so 1 hbo type provider is fine for me.

sex offender to be ordained a priest, how's that for a coincidence?

why set hbo aside? it's practically the only tv i do watch, and the shows are generally really good, including the documentaries and bill maher's talk show (though skin-a-max does own them when it comes to yer late night options ) hbo's a fine example of being able to get quality programming, sans advertising, if you're actually interested in that sorta thing. people who are inclined to sit through commericial breaks were hopeless fools long before murdoch built his empire.